1) Explain that previous consistent statements are, as a general rule, inadmissible because they are irrelevant.
2) Define previous consistent statement.
3) Evaluate the rationale for the general rule against the admissibility of previous consistent statements.
(d) Discuss and apply the facts and ratio of R v Roberts 1943 28 Cr App R 102 as an example of a previous consistent statement from case law.
Name and identify the numerus clauses of exceptions to the general rule against the admissibility of previous consistent statements.
(f) Discuss and apply each of the following exceptions to the general rule in detail:
1. To rebut an allegation of recent fabrication.
2. Prior identification in the form of the so-called “dock identification”.
3. Prior identification in the form of the identification parade.
- Complaint by the victim of a sexual offence, particularly:
16© 2026 University of Pretoria
i. each of the common law requirements for applicability of this exception and the criticism thereof.
ii. the provisions of sections 58 and 59 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007).
iii. the extent to which each of the common law requirements has been amended by sections 58 and 59.
iv. the application of the “first reasonable opportunity” requirement in S v S 1995 (1) SACR 50 (ZS); and S v Cornick 2007 (2) SACR 115 (SCA).
v. the exception to the principle of limited evidential value as applied in S v S 1990 (1) SACR 5 (A).
- Refreshing memory.
Statements made at arrest or discovery of incriminating article
